With five weeks to go to Britain's referendum on its EU membership, as the debate deepens and complicates, so do the possibilities for a split in the Conservative party. The latest figures revealed by Financial Times shows that campaign for UK to remain in EU is supported by 46% of voters while those seeking to leave are on 43%. The ORB poll has predicted 55% now support the Remain camp, an increase of 4 points since their previous poll in April. 40% vote Leave, a 3 point decrease. Both the camps have argued many sides of the 'Remain' and 'Leave' campaign
Prime Minister David Cameron's plea for his party not to tear itself apart during the EU Referendum campaign is looking increasingly hopeless, as the bitter exchanges between senior Tory figures reach a new level.
Ian Duncan Smith, the pr-Brexit former cabinet minister excalated his long standing feud with Chancellor George Osborne by claiming that the Treasury was the worst thing that could have happened to Britain.
As the FT reported, Michael Gove, the justice secretary and co-convener of Vote Leave said Britain's influence has been left 'diminished' by the EU Reform deal struck by Cameron after months of laborious diplomacy.
The Vote Leave campaign has accused David Cameron of being “knee deep in a conspiracy” to keep Britain in the EU, as letters emerged indicating the Prime Minister had allegedly discussed the role big business could play in the Remain campaign before he had even completed his renegotiation deal with European leaders. In an alleged letter (that was reportedly seen by Daily Mail) to Mr Cameron from Serco chief executive Rupert Soames, sent 11 days before the renegotiation deal was completed, and the EU referendum formally announced, the business leader refers to talks held with the Prime Minister earlier in the year.
The Independent pointed out, following up on the meeting, he planned to contact FTSE 500 companies to urge them to mention the risks of Brexit in their annual reports.
At the time of the meeting and the letter, dated 8 February, Mr Cameron’s official position was that he could still campaign for a Leave vote if his renegotiation failed to secure the changes he wanted.
He told the House of Commons on February 3: “I am not arguing – and I will never argue – that Britain couldn’t survive outside the European Union…If we can’t secure these changes, I rule nothing out.”
Meanwhile the attacks are becoming more heated in the Remain campaign too. Sir John Major, the former Prime Minister accused leading Brexiteers of morphing into Ukip and playing their 'trump card' of immigration.
With the narrowing gap in the polls, the stakes are getting higher. The issue is the Prime Minister won his 2015 General Election- promising a chance of EU Referendum to his voters- which is of course proving to be a heavy burden on him now. He is trying to inject passion into the Remain case, by arguing that Brexit would put 'peace and stability' at stake. Boris Johnson representing the Leave campaign has mocked the Prime Minister's warnings as unnecessary hyperbole. The reality is in this whole mud-slinging match, time is running out for the Leave campaign to make a legitimate case for Brexit over the Remain campaign- with a clearer and simpler message in support of their own case.
History repeats itself?
The greatest dividein Tory party was over the 19th century Corn Laws. The rift was big enough to keep the party out of majority for 28 years and was caused by the repeal of a system of price protection that had been beneficial to landowning Conservative voters.
The FT reported, in the 19th century, Sir Robert Peel, a liberal Conservative, concluded that reducing the price of bread was more important than his party’s interest. This invoked the fury of the parliamentary party, led by the charismatic Benjamin Disraeli and fine tuned by Lord George Bentinck.
Keeping the Corn Laws had been a key platform of the party’s electoral success in 1841, so goimg back on the promises was seen as dishonourable and almost treachery. Ultimately, the law was only changed with opposition votes and the leading “Peelites”, such as William Ewart Gladstone, went off to join the Liberal party.
In 1906 a similar divide over trade led to a disastrous election result. A highly intelligent but distant leader, Arthur Balfour, could not hold his party together against a charismatic populist. Joseph Chamberlain had proposed Imperial Preference — a system with many similarities to the EU customs union but with different participants.
Chamberlain led a movement that lobbied aggressively for this scheme, to the distress of other leading Conservatives in a party which by now was primarily free trading. Balfour sat on the fence but found the position increasingly uncomfortable. Although the Tories were only out of sole majority office for 16 years, it was a period that included the first world war and the utter division and ultimate collapse of the Liberal party.
National identity in crisis
When historians get sucked into a political controversy, it is often a sign that the country is undergoing a major identity crisis. In an article by Gideon Rachman, in FT he has widely discussed the affect of politics on historical inferences.
In 1960 Germany, an academic argument whether the country had been responsible for the first world war led to a fercious public debate. Disputes between historians in Britain have not tended to be so obviously political. Generations of undergraduates have enjoyed or been very passive through arguments about standard of living in the industrial revolution. Such arguments have of course plucked Marxist historian interests- but have hardly affected daily politics. Perhaps a sign that British is much less sure of its national identity as the historical professionals have got involved in a heated argument about Britain's relationship with the rest of Europe.
Historians for Britain argue, the British Parliament embodies principles of political conduct that have their roots in the 13th century. The Europhile historians happily make holes in this narrative. They claim parliamentary sovereignty was not to be seen in Britain till the 17th century. Universal suffrage was only established in 1928- after many European countries.
Speaking about moderation, historians for Britain argue that British political temper is much milder than mainland Europe. But at the same time, historians have challenged that through Britain's history of aggressive imperialism- including expropriation, slavery, massacres, opression etc. And the arguments continue.
India to benefit?
According to a report by the SBI's Economic Research Department, Brexit may actually strengthen India's position as a truncated EU may have to rework its negotiation strategy in order to gain market access.
"This referendum will have geopolitical implications and will affect the relation of the rest of the world with Europe. But, our take is that though such an exit brings up a lot of uncertainty within Europe, it definitely opens up opportunities for India," the SBI report said.
The Economic Times reported, from an India point of view, it is also necessary to appreciate that in the event of Brexit, it is unlikely that UK financial market and its financial expertise will evaporate overnight, it said. According to SBI, there is one visible fallout of this referendum- it does put a question mark on the future of Indo-EU Free Trade Agreement.
Elephant in the room
The Sunday Times has very clearly pointed out that the decision makers in the EU Referendum are the people or Britain. Technicrats, banks, FTSE listed companies can weigh the pros and cons as much as they want- the decision ultimately lies in the hands of the people of Britain. The Vote exit group have claimed that Migration to Britain from other countries in the EU over the past years have doubled the official figures. Fraser Nelson in the Daily Telegraph wrote, Britain is not really with immigration in itself- but with the Government's failure to respond to that immigration...And the biggest single problem is political denial. While the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been accused of trying to bully British voters into staying within the EU, Mark Carney, Governor of Bank of England, waded into the Brexit debate warning that a vote to leave the EU could cause a recession in Britain. The Vote Leave camp retaliated over a stinging attack against ITV by some activists, as they were unhappy that Nigel Farage was invited to a debate rather than one of its own campaign members.
Norway enjoys membership of the EEA. And is treated as a full member of the single market. UK could possibly trade with EU as much as the world does, in accordance with the rules of WTO, though UK is far more dependant on its trade with the EU than the US, partly because of proximity, partly because of the history. While Boris Johnson has reached a new low, by comapring EU to Hitler, he has received ample backing from Brexit camp, while PM Cameron has warned that Isil will be happy with Brexit, as they may find it easy to target UK. Economically speaking, London is not Zurich, just as Toronto can't be the financial capital of the US. Eurozone would do whatever it could to move euro-dominated transactions away from the UK. The best of both worlds is a delusion.
